grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I never got them either. I was always told that the scope was mounted forward to allow for stripper clips to be used, and of course anything mounted that far forward is limited to around 2x.
I think for someone who came up in an environment where bolt actions with iron sights were the standard issue infantry weapon, a scout rifle would be judged a serious upgrade. Stripper clips were key to bolt actions being used in place of semi automatics, so any attempt to put optics on one would have to preserve that ability, which means either forward or to the side.
It's also important to realize that scopes of that period were about 4x max. So a 2x scope mounted forward might have been preferable to a 3-4x scope canted to the side. One problem with the concept is that scopes are heavy, and the last thing you want to do is take a heavy optic and mount it out where its weight is multiplied. You end up with a rifle that's too low powered, magnification wise, to be considered a precision instrument, yet it's too unbalanced and unwieldy for quick offhand shots.
Another issue is whether a 2x scope is substantially better than iron sights, or nowadays a red dot. I've played around with 2x optics and I just don't see the point. I wouldn't mind having one for handgun hunting at relatively close range, but for defensive applications I think they're terrible.
I don't know much about the history of the scout concept, or exactly when it first came about, but my gut tells me it was developed by people who were simply behind the times, who were still stuck in bolt action stripper clip mentality in a world that was going detachable box fed automatic.
I think for someone who came up in an environment where bolt actions with iron sights were the standard issue infantry weapon, a scout rifle would be judged a serious upgrade. Stripper clips were key to bolt actions being used in place of semi automatics, so any attempt to put optics on one would have to preserve that ability, which means either forward or to the side.
It's also important to realize that scopes of that period were about 4x max. So a 2x scope mounted forward might have been preferable to a 3-4x scope canted to the side. One problem with the concept is that scopes are heavy, and the last thing you want to do is take a heavy optic and mount it out where its weight is multiplied. You end up with a rifle that's too low powered, magnification wise, to be considered a precision instrument, yet it's too unbalanced and unwieldy for quick offhand shots.
Another issue is whether a 2x scope is substantially better than iron sights, or nowadays a red dot. I've played around with 2x optics and I just don't see the point. I wouldn't mind having one for handgun hunting at relatively close range, but for defensive applications I think they're terrible.
I don't know much about the history of the scout concept, or exactly when it first came about, but my gut tells me it was developed by people who were simply behind the times, who were still stuck in bolt action stripper clip mentality in a world that was going detachable box fed automatic.